Research Knowledge, Attitudes, Practices and Barriers among Paediatric Occupational Therapists in the United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence-based practice and research utilisation are promoted to enable clients to receive the most current care; however, there is limited research evaluating the use of these approaches within the occupational therapy profession. This study aimed to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, practices and barriers to evidence-based practice and research utilisation of a group of paediatric occupational therapists in the United Kingdom. Questionnaires were received from 145 participants (response rate 30%), who completed the Research Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Research Survey (KAP Survey), the Edmonton Research Orientation Survey (EROS) and the Barriers to Research Utilisation Scale (BARRIERS). The results indicated that the respondents held positive attitudes towards research and were willing to access new information and implement research findings to guide clinical practice. However, they were less confident in their research knowledge and practices, and perceived multiple barriers associated with the organisation, accessibility and quality of research. The respondents reported limited engagement in conducting research studies; however, the majority of the sample reported implementing the findings of research in their clinical practice to some extent. Additional research education and support within organisations would be beneficial to ensure that children and families are receiving occupational therapy services that are based on sound research evidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".